John McShame finally renounced “Rev.” Hagee’s endorsement — the endorsement he defended only last week in an effort to pander to the fundie bloc — after Huffington Post dug up an audio tape of the “reverend” saying God sent Hitler to help Jews get to the promised land.

How the heck do you return an endorsement, though? How big a box do you need? Do you send it parcel post or Fed Ex? Or truck freight? Do you mark it “Return to Send” or “Refused”? What about the 30-day return policy — did McShame keep this endorsement too long to get a refund?

Hey kiddies! Once again it’s time to put on your thinking caps! This week’s subject is APPEASEMENT and the question is a real doozy, so don’t be hasty! Take your time and think through the problem before answering. Ready? Heeeeere weeeee gooooooo!!!

Which U.S. president made deals with Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi and wrote polite letters to North Korea’s Kim Jong Il?

RR @ 3 I would think that McCain’s returning an old endorsement like that of Rev. Hagee is not a simple matter of finding the proper courier and paying the freight. I think he wore the suit a bit too long and now he must haggle with a clerk to make the exchange. He’s up against it. Even Nordstroms has tightened up its return policy.

So according to a rockstar of the American evangelical movement, their God sent Hitler? These are the people that have been pulling the strings of government for the last 30 years, and Repudlickers have been anxiously grovelling at their feet the whole while.

I’m not convinced that Clark is the strongest veep prospect or a deal sealer. He holds no office, represents no state, has no constituency, and has been out of the limelight for years. And never had strong political credentials to begin with. He’s the Democratic version of a Colin Powell — probably competent and a solid choice for a cabinet position but not a political force the other party would have to reckon with.

Bush implied Obama was an “Appeaser”, like Chamberlain. Media pointed out that Chamberlain’s mistake wasn’t that he negotiated with Hitler, but that he gave him territory. Also, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and China. Then McCain tried to argue that Obama being open to talking with Iran was difference, because he didn’t say he would have “pre-conditions” before talking with them. Talk about trying to back-peddle to save a losing argument….

But this all reminded me that when Nixon visited the Soviet Union and China, there were pre-conditions which had to be met first. The U.S. withdrew it’s combat troops from Vietnam. And the U.S. dropped all claims for compensation for property of U.S. citizens siezed during their respective revolutions. They set the pre-conditions, and we met them.

And now, in the words of Stephanie Miller, “Thanks for playing another game of “Reaaaalllly BAD Analogy!”

Obama’s appeasement would be giving Iran, et al, what it wants unilaterally and unconditionally all in a vain hope – a hope upon which he will starve – that he can pesuade vipers not to act according to their character.

What Iran, et al, want is international viability and credibility, which unconditional, head-of-government to head-of-government bi-lateral negotiations would give.

When Kennedy met Kruschev unconditionally in Vienna, he got his ass whipped and Kruschev came away thinking less about reaching a deal with the U.S. and more that the U.S. could be had, hence Russia’s bold move to stick missles in Cuba.

Now, JFK redeemed himself during the Cuba Missle Crisis, but it was a crisis that he could have avoided by not licking Nikita’s shoes some months earlier.

Neville Chamberlain’s mistake was indeed negotiating with Hitler, who had already proved his mettle as an international thug, liar, bully, and mendacious scum. The whole premise of Munich was to force Britain and France to concede to Germany hegemony over Eastern Europe such that by simply showing up Chamberlain legitimized Germany’s demands and position.

BHO, shooting from a naive hip, painted himself into a corner from which he’s been trying to wiggle out ever since, hence his parsing of the language and now his denunciation of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

And this is what passes for “judgment” among Democrats these days? FDR, Truman, and a sadder but wiser JFK are all rolling over in their graves at the thought of it.

What Iran, et al, want is international viability and credibility, which unconditional, head-of-government to head-of-government bi-lateral negotiations would give.

No. What Iran wants is credibility and influence among other nations in the Middle East, and the longer they defy “The Great Satan” the more their credibility and influence increases among those nations.

Indeed, if your definition of “appeasement” consists of giving Iran what they want in terms of credibility and influence, then the Bush Administration, and by extension John McCain, are the real appeasers here.

@16, your assessment is the standard, prepackaged, molded, beat your chest, God bless America (because God chose America), Christian self-righteous, bomb the brown people party-line klatch. Reconcile to us, if you could, concisely, how a Christian’s mentality could be to inflict heinous death and misery on innocent victims before having a simple dialog with their leaders. And spare me the sophistic redirection that I hate America.

What you fail to understand, no, what you know but fail to admit is that the “pre-conditions” for a meeting that President Obama will set and those of Lame Duck Bush are vastly different.

Bush wants Iran to meet pre-set conditions that ultimately are all the end results the Untied States would hope to achieve with Iran through negotiations. Of course, no nation state would agree to those conditions and it allows Bush to say diplomacy didn’t work. Naturally, when you set the stage for failure that’s what you get.

President Obama, on the other hand, would set the conditions to have meaningful dialogue that sets the table for success.

When President Obama says “no preconditions” he means the ones established by the failed Bush administration.

You don’t set preconditions with snakes – the point is completely lost on them.

As for Cong. Reichert? That his opponent is The Darcy is ample justification to support his re-election. I don’t need to defend him when to do so among the HA Happy Hooligans would be a futile gesture.

It’s enough to poke holes in the transparent nature of The Darcy – toss back the curtain of her illusory wizardry and expose her for the humbug she is.

Not a difficult task, mind you, but again a lesson in lost points when it comes to the HA Happy Hooligans.

You’re non-answer is the perfect answer: Rep. Dave Reichert has not accomplished anything in congress.

Contrasted by Darcy Burner’s Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. It doesn’t matter if there are flaws in her plan, it clearly demonstrates that a private citizen has done more to grasp the problem, elicit input from military and national security experts and then authored the document.

That is more than Reichert has done.

If you’re basing your reason(s) to back Reichert over Burner simply because she is the Democratic opposition I’m fine with that. But that doesn’t mean Reichert has any legislative accomplishments and his experience is just keeping the seat warm in the House for his eventual replacement.

Not a solid track record of success, but then again, he’s pretty much on par with the RNC since 2001.

No doubt the GOP will need help this fall, and The Darcy is providing it.

Her Irresponsible Plan – not simply a white paper on surrender, but a white flag – is littered with silliness. Anyone who would endorse, let alone propound, such foolishness has no business being on any ballot more serious than the Ames Lake Homeowners’ Assn prexy contest.

Notice how the only ones taking that bit of inanity seriously are the HA Happy Hooligans and their fellow travelling bag-packers like Jay Inslee and a few unreconstructed Marxists over at the P-I?

I’ve said before that Cong. Reichert is a tad liberal for my taste on many issues, but his support for the war effort and his recent support for free trade with Columbia are enough to earn him my support.

BTW…interesting how the left orgasmically seeks to embrace enemies of the USA but can’t wait to bash friends of the USA.

Why is that? Might check the DSM-IV under the heading “self-loathing.”

“There you go again.” I suppose after 28 years of using this tired old playbook to win political office you can’t let it go, but the whole notion of “Liberals are appeasers, hate America 1st crowd, fiscally irresponsible, don’t support the troops. . . . blah, blah, blah” has run its course. It was fun but it’s done!

It didn’t work in 2006 and this year the conditions are even worse for Republicans. Americans in general are struggling with the high cost of energy. Most people haven’t really had the chance to recalibrate their personal budgets to figure out how they’re going to pay their bills while continuing to fund record profits for the Republicans largest political donors – Big OIL. George W. McCain had better know what the cost of oil was the day before him, Bush and the Republicans opted to launch a war of choice in Iraq. Because he’s going to get asked that question a lot.

Americans are going to punish Republicans for their failed leadership of the nation and more importantly, our military during a time of war. You guys got a pass in 2002 and 2004 but lost it in 2006. Staying the course is an option for you guys, but like the Iraq War, the War on Terror, allowing North Korea to go nuclear on your watch, building the status of Iran on your watch it is the worst course of action for your party to pursue. It will not play well with the electorate – even the redneck hillbillies aren’t that stupid. Except Mark the Redneck, he IS that stupid.

As the Head MFR in charge of NATO, Clark nearly started WWIII with Russia. A British General and a US Navy Admiral refused his orders. What was he going to do? Oh yeah, he was going to bomb a russian airport. Go ahead and put your trust in HIS judgment. HA!

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.